Donor

Would be kinda weird if no women have 90+ ratings assuming it's all relative to each gender.

Click to expand...

I thought Rapinoe would be there, maybe she still will since it isn't finalized

Wambach 88 though?

For LMs Megan is 87, that's same rating as Silva, Reus was 86, Hazard and Ribery 88.
Legends Pires (88) and Nedved (89) aren't much higher so it isn't that crazy.
Here are the men with 90+ ratings:
Messi, Ronaldo, Robben, Ibra, Neuer

StaffDonorTMB OG

Five key members of the United States women’s national soccer team, the reigning World Cup and Olympic champion, have filed a federal complaint charging U.S. Soccer with wage discrimination.

In the filing, the five players contend that the women’s team is the driving economic force for U.S. Soccer, the governing body for the sport in America, even as its players are paid far less than their counterparts on the men’s national team, said their lawyer, Jeffrey Kessler.

The players involved in the complaint are among the most prominent and decorated female athletes in the world: the co-captains Carli Lloyd and Becky Sauerbrunn, forward Alex Morgan, midfielder Megan Rapinoe and goalkeeper Hope Solo.

In their complaint — which was submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, on Wednesday — the players requested an investigation of U.S. Soccer. But in taking official action, they also thrust their team into a debate roiling in several sports, notably professional tennis, about equal pay for men and women.

“We have been quite patient over the years with the belief that the federation would do the right thing and compensate us fairly,” Lloyd, the most valuable player of last year’s Women’s World Cup, said in a statement released by the players and Kessler.

Solo was more blunt in the statement, directly comparing the women’s achievements with those of the men’s national team.

“The numbers speak for themselves,” Solo said. “We are the best in the world, have three World Cup championships, four Olympic championships, and the U.S.M.N.T. get paid more to just show up than we get paid to win major championships.”

Citing budget figures released last month by U.S. Soccer, Kessler said the players contend that they earned as little as 40 percent of what players on the United States men’s national team earned even as they marched to the team’s third world championship last year, and that they were shortchanged on everything from bonuses and appearance fees to per diems.

“This is the strongest case of discrimination against women athletes in violation of law that I have ever seen,” Kessler said.

Though only five players signed the complaint, they said they were acting on behalf of the entire women’s team, saying they are all employees of U.S. Soccer through their national team contracts.

The filing of the complaint was the latest move in an increasingly contentious legal fight between U.S. Soccer and the women’s national team players, who are favored to repeat as Olympic champions at the Rio Games in August.

“While we have not seen this complaint and can’t comment on the specifics of it,” U.S. Soccer said in a statement, “we are disappointed about this action. We have been a world leader in women’s soccer and are proud of the commitment we have made to building the women’s game in the United States over the past 30 years.”

Women’s national team players have long grumbled about their pay, working conditions and travel and hotel arrangements, which the players contend are inferior to those given to the men’s national team despite the women’s far superior record. The men’s most notable achievement in the past half-century was a quarterfinal appearance at the 2002 World Cup.

The long-simmering feud between the women’s team and U.S. Soccer’s leadership boiled over after last summer’s Women’s World Cup. A match in Hawaii that was part of the team’s so-called victory tour was canceled when the players refused to play on an artificial-turf field they deemed unsafe. U.S. Soccer’s president, Sunil Gulati, later apologized for the situation.

Two months later, the disagreement veered into federal court when U.S. Soccer took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit against the national team’s players’ union as part of a dispute about the validity of the players’ collective bargaining agreement. The federation contends the agreement, which expired in 2012, lives on in a memorandum of understanding the sides signed in early 2013. The union contends it does not.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will not deal with the larger issues in that fight, or in the bargaining talks, because it does not have jurisdiction, Kessler said. But by raising the issue of the compensation of the men’s national team, the women’s players may risk dividing the teams’ fan bases even as they put U.S. Soccer in a difficult position. The federation has collective bargaining agreements with both teams, but the financial terms differ widely.

The women’s players are salaried employees — the top players are paid about $72,000 a year by the federation — but they contend that even with that extra income, their bonus structure means they earn far less than their male counterparts, who receive money from U.S. Soccer only if they are called to the national team.

A men’s player, for example, receives $5,000 for a loss in a friendly match but as much as $17,625 for a win against a top opponent. A women’s player receives $1,350 for a similar match, but only if the United States wins; women’s players receive no bonuses for losses or ties.

Yet the women point to the television ratings for their matches and the crowds they draw as evidence that the disparity in federation pay is unfair.

The men and the women “have identical work requirements,” Kessler said. “The same number of minimum friendlies, the same requirements about participating and making the World Cup teams — identical work.

“But the women have without dispute vastly outperformed the men not just on the playing field but economically for the U.S.S.F. The women have generated all the money in comparison with the men.”

U.S. Soccer is expected to argue that the players’ pay is collectively bargained, and that the players agreed to all issues, including compensation and working conditions like whether the team must play on artificial turf or not. (The federation and the women’s players’ union are continuing discussions on compensation in a new collective bargaining agreement amid the current action.)

U.S. Soccer also receives substantially higher payouts from FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, for participation in the men’s World Cup. But the women’s complaint seems to take aim at a bigger share of domestic revenue, like sponsorships and television contracts.

Budget figures provided by U.S. Soccer at its annual general meeting in February showed a $20 million increase in national team revenue in 2015. The women’s players attributed that to their World Cup triumph and the subsequent multicity victory tour. U.S. Soccer is expecting another windfall this year; among its budget projections for 2016 is $2.3 million for another victory tour after the Olympics.

It is unclear how long it will take to resolve the complaint, but the process will almost certainly hover over the women team’s preparations for the Rio Games in August. If the E.E.O.C. rules for the players, it could seek relief on behalf of the entire women’s national team in the form of a negotiated settlement or side with the players in federal court, Kessler said. If the case is successful, it could force U.S. Soccer to surrender millions of dollars in back pay.

Opportunities for women to participate in sports have increased greatly in the more than 40 years since the passage of the gender-equity legislation known as Title IX. But financial parity has often lagged behind.

The N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament, which began in 1939, pays about $260,000 to a conference for each game a team plays in the tournament, the sports economist Andrew Zimbalist wrote recently in The New York Times. The winning team rakes in $1.56 million for its conference. By contrast, the N.C.A.A women’s tournament, which began in 1982, awards zero dollars for winning a game.

It could be argued that men’s sports deserve a financial edge because they are more popular, draw bigger crowds, generate far more money in ticket sales and corporate sponsorships. But that is not true for every sport. Women’s figure skating, for instance, has often drawn higher television ratings and bigger crowds than men’s figure skating.

And while women have often been dismissed internationally as soccer players — the men’s World Cup began in 1930 and the women’s not until 1991 — they have become the sport’s standard bearers in the United States.

It is the women’s team that has provided repeated success that has remained elusive for the American men. Not so long ago, perhaps the best known soccer player in the country was not a man but a woman, Mia Hamm. Even today, the United States is perceived by many around the world to be a predominantly female soccer culture.

When Hamm and her teammates won the 1999 World Cup in the United States, they set records for attendance and television viewing. Last summer, when the United States defeated Japan to win another Women’s World Cup, the final was seen by 25.4 million viewers on Fox — a record for a men’s or women’s soccer game on English-language television in this country.

StaffDonorTMB OG

Because the men brought in more than double the revenue last year. Plus they aren't salaried like the women. It is a very different setup and they both made these deals at different times individually but aware of the other deal.

Donor

Because the men brought in more than double the revenue last year. Plus they aren't salaried like the women. It is a very different setup and they both made these deals at different times individually but aware of the other deal.

Donor

Because the men brought in more than double the revenue last year. Plus they aren't salaried like the women. It is a very different setup and they both made these deals at different times individually but aware of the other deal.

Click to expand...

Are you sure? Because numbers ive seen show women's revenue was pretty high this past year and projected for next year.

And from what i understand its not necessarily a direct $-to-$ argument but much more consistent standards for both sides, especially when it comes to what you are getting a bonus for (nevermind the amount, for argument purposes).

Obviously the big $ is FIFA's payout to the federation for WC TV rights...but i think even the women acknowledge that. Its more about the system and how much of what goes into the pool is allocated correctly. And it is not just because "they win more"

Donor

Because it's going to be a political statement and not an actual interpretation of the law.

Click to expand...

admittedly I am curious about this. because its different from say, a woman in the office next to me doing the same job for less money. Its not like we compete in different mens and womens marketing divisions. So i get that but not sure how the law will interpret US Soccer in that respect.

But bottom line is the women do bring in a lot of revenue and if they arent being given enough of that pie, then i support this even if "vs. the men" isnt necessarily the most lawful platform.

StaffDonorTMB OG

For some reason I thought 2014 was last year so wrong on that. These numbers the women put in the filing appear skewed though as they leave out Men's WC Qualifiers. In terms of friendlies though it was a bloodbath with the men bringing in 4x the women. I don't buy they are now going to bring in 3x what they did last year in friendlies unless they are playing every week.

StaffDonorTMB OG

Revenues for 4-year cycle: $60.2 million for US men, $51.2 million for US women. Women trending upward too.

Click to expand...

If this is true then they should be able to demand near equivalent pay on a yearly basis. Not on a game to game basis, but yearly basis because it seems the women play way more games than the men and that drives up their total revenue.

It will be interesting to see though what the men make with Copa here this summer. Even if the US Men don't make a lot of money off Copa just off their gate having a US Men team allows the entire US to benefit from Copa. The Women don't offer that same opportunity.

I don't buy the argument that the work is the same so they should get the same argument. The work is the same in WNBA versus NBA. The work is the same in WPSL versus MLS. Would they argue that they should get paid the same there as well?

Donor

admittedly I am curious about this. because its different from say, a woman in the office next to me doing the same job for less money. Its not like we compete in different mens and womens marketing divisions. So i get that but not sure how the law will interpret US Soccer in that respect.

Click to expand...

This is my complaint, it's not really comparing apples to apples but the EEOC will probably rule on it as though it's an apples to apples comparison because of the political climate.

Donor

It will be interesting to see though what the men make with Copa here this summer. Even if the US Men don't make a lot of money off Copa just off their gate having a US Men team allows the entire US to benefit from Copa. The Women don't offer that same opportunity.

Click to expand...

Theres an article somewhere that US Soccer gets a cut of any international game played here regardless of whos playing. So Mexico playing Haiti or whoever in the Georgia Dome - US Soccer gets a nice little cut. I know thats not Copa, but US Soccer gets in on everything.

I don't buy the argument that the work is the same so they should get the same argument. The work is the same in WNBA versus NBA. The work is the same in WPSL versus MLS. Would they argue that they should get paid the same there as well?

Click to expand...

Right but then it gets back to how the other money that goes into US Soccer and how that gets divided - because at the end of the day both teams are directly under the same entity and not "another league" ala NBA/WNBA. They all work off the same balance sheet.

Donor

admittedly I am curious about this. because its different from say, a woman in the office next to me doing the same job for less money. Its not like we compete in different mens and womens marketing divisions. So i get that but not sure how the law will interpret US Soccer in that respect.

But bottom line is the women do bring in a lot of revenue and if they arent being given enough of that pie, then i support this even if "vs. the men" isnt necessarily the most lawful platform.

Click to expand...

Right, this is an interesting issue.
In thinking about it some (I just posted this in the "with farva" thread btw) I kind of think that there actually should be a guaranteed wage that is the same for the men and women, and they should actually get the same success-based bonuses. The market size shouldn't really impact that imo. Rather, the differences might come in on the sponsorship end. This way the labor is paid for equitably, but the men can take advantage of being bigger revenue generators outside of the scope of their labor agreement (if that makes sense).

Donor

I think the women's argument isnt that they dont make as much as the men as a dollar figure - but that they had to achieve significantly more to be able to do it. So if the men would have achieved the same thing as the women....or the women achieved as little as the men...thats where the imbalance is.

StaffDonorTMB OG

I think the women's argument isnt that they dont make as much as the men as a dollar figure - but that they had to achieve significantly more to be able to do it. So if the men would have achieved the same thing as the women....or the women achieved as little as the men...thats where the imbalance is.

Click to expand...

That blurb says the women's earned more than the men without the FIFA bonuses, and the FIFA bonus is where the huge discrepancy comes which I think is completely out of USSFs hands

StaffDonorTMB OG

Donor

That blurb says the women's earned more than the men without the FIFA bonuses, and the FIFA bonus is where the huge discrepancy comes which I think is completely out of USSFs hands

Click to expand...

But iirc...its not the FIFA bonus they were concerned with either...it was performance bonuses based from USSF. I seem to remember something about the men getting a big payout for friendly losses while women wouldnt get anything. The argument from USSF here is that the women are salaried where the men are paid per appearance (right?).

StaffDonorTMB OG

Donor

But iirc...its not the FIFA bonus they were concerned with either...it was performance bonuses based from USSF. I seem to remember something about the men getting a big payout for friendly losses while women wouldnt get anything. The argument from USSF here is that the women are salaried where the men are paid per appearance (right?).

Click to expand...

The women negotiated to be paid more as a base and as a trade off they get smaller bonuses